Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 1

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 1, 2020.

מקדונלד'ס

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#מקדונלד'ס

Major league basball 2k5

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled word, 10 views in 2019 compared with 6,269 for the article. Clutter; delete. Narky Blert (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Basball manager

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled word, 18 views in 2019 compared with 680 for the correct redirect. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Doug Baldwin (Amrican football)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled qualifier, and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} with it. The redirect Doug Baldwin (American football) exists, and got 10,259 views in 2019. The nominated redirect is clutter, with 13 views in 2019; delete. Narky Blert (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Steel1943/The never-ending redirection

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was All thrown off into the abyss of April 2nd's arrival. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The never-ending redirection... Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Francis Joseph (fotballer)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled qualifier. 38 views in 2019, compared with 1,697 for the article. Clutter; delete. Narky Blert (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rules for Fools

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary WP:XNR. I get it, we want to make sure that the encyclopedia is not destroyed/vandalized today, but we also don't need a redirect in the article namespace to attract WP:SEO-ish results on search engines stating that we allow it. In other words, see WP:BEANS. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

International version

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. There's international versions of many things, not just video games. Hog Farm (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Philippine independence

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. It doesn't seem like we're likely to resolve this issue with further relistings. As this nomination was in response to edit warring, a no consensus result here actually means that we will be going back to pointing to Treaty of Manila (1946) signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Treaty of Manila (1946). That was the origincal redirect. The Treaty of Manila is the treaty that gave the Philippines its internationally recognized independence in 1946. Independence Day (Philippines) refers to June 12, 1898, when Philippine Revolutionaries declared the Philippines independent. They failed. The Philippines was ruled by the U.S. for nearly 50 years. In common parlance and in international law the Philippines gained its Independence in 1946. This redirect says "Philippine independence" and should point to when the country actually became independent, when it gained its sovereignty, when it fully ruled itself. The redirect originally pointed to the Treaty of Manila article but was changed several years ago, over objections, several months after the concluded discussion on the Talk page ruled generally against the change (keeping Treaty of Manila). I and other editors didn't notice. Rather than change it back and risk (another) WP:EDITWAR, I bring it here, as suggested years ago on Talk:Philippine independence.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference is that the American Revolutionaries won whereas the Philippine Revolutionaries lost. In America, the declaration became reality. In America, those that declared independence achieved independence. In the Philippines, the declaration was not followed by independence but by American colonial rule. Independence did not come for the Philippines until 1946. This creates a disconnect between what is called Independence Day, which did not lead to independence, and the real independence nearly 50 years later. Naturally speaking, does "Philippine independence" refer to real independence or the day called Independence Day?--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only saying a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists so a disambiguation page is unnecessary. Hatnotes can do all the work anyway. If people wanted to search the national independence holiday, the appropriate redirect is Independence Day (Philippines). But Philippine independence itself is overwhelmingly a June 12, 1898 event in people's memory, the day of the independence declaration. The Philippine Centennial redirects to the correct article being the 100 years of Philippine independence. Last year, Google search paid tribute to 121 years of Philippine independence with a doodle. Again, theres nothing that a hatnote cant do. I know the history, but we are all just following what the average reader understands as Philippine independence and their likely search term for the June 12, 1898 event. Hatnotes.--RioHondo (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'm only saying that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is actual independence, when the Philippines began to govern itself. When you say "in people's memory", I am wondering "Which people?" Certainly not the people of America, or Europe, or Africa. A WP:GLOBAL understanding of the WP:COMMONNAME as well as the understanding of the phrase "the Philippines since independence" would naturally lead to 1946. Otherwise people not from the Philippines (and many in the Philippines) would be confused. The use of "independence day" as a name for June 12, 1898 is a term of art and an historical accident that is not understood by anyone who does not have a working knowledge of Philippine history. When people outside the Philippines are looking for information on "Philippine independence" they mean when the Philippines began its current period of self-rule, like what happened in other former colonies. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is not unique to the Philippines. Countries like East Timor and Vietnam also celebrate their independence declaration and not the dates they were granted by Indonesia and France respectively. Estonia and Georgia also recognize their pre-USSR sovereignty as their independence. So when the reliable sources mention xx years of Vietnam's or Timor's or Estonia's independence, we know which dates they are referring to, like in our case, the dates they recognize and celebrate. Those are featured annually by mainstream media.--RioHondo (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDisambiguate with a sentence or two of explanation -- I'm happy with that.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my suggestion was to make it a WP:SS article; however, a rose, by any other name, .... The term Philippine independence seems to mean and to have meant different things to different people, and separate WP articles exist which detail and expound upon those different meanings. A number of separate WP articles concern separate declarations of independence by separate revolutionary organizations. Also, the term conceals an ambiguity between declaration of independence and achievement of independence. This is too messy, as you point out, for a disambiguation page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's complicated. This appears, at first glance, to be something that somebody would type in expecting a general historical article. One that discusses the evolution of different intellectual streams of thought in the country, the colonialist fights, the issues in context with broader world wars, and so on? I'm iffy on having any just one single event and/or document gone to here. I find myself interested in the previous comment's point. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

He Hymn of Death

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Not recently created. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Black Monday II

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear neologism with no sources referencing this name for the incident. Only historical content was copied from the existing redirect target. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, and as is typical for SIAs: Black Monday has something like 80 links-in, most of which are plain wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Typical link, in Brown v. Board of Education: 'Many Southern white Americans viewed Brown v. Board of Education as "a day of catastrophe—a Black Monday—a day something like Pearl Harbor."' The top entry in Black Monday is a 1209 massacre in Dublin by the Irish of 500 English settlers, and the second is a day of bad weather in 1360 which killed men and horses. The parallels are not exact. Narky Blert (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mexicanx

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Mexicanx

Y@K

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. I suppose that this would originate from capitalizing the 2 for an (at) symbol, but the (at) causes the title to take on a completely different meaning. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Noo Yawk English

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With this particular spelling, this is an unlikely search term. I suggest deletion Utopes (talk / cont) 22:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With your argument, the Noo Yawk and Noo Yawk City should be deleted. Fonemik misspellings are quite common on the Internet (e.g. kool, kwik, sed, thru, wun). --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 12:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Soumyabrata, It does sound made up however the source provided above proves it was once used. There may be people out there who either type like this or used too. –Davey2010Talk 10:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

D!NGD*NG

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D!NG was never referred to by this name, by the best of my knowledge. Stevens refers to the audience as "Ding Dongers" in this episode, but that's the closest I could find. Redirect was created by a user who was recently topic banned from creating redirects. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep both. Note that Meksiko has been turned into a disambiguation page. bibliomaniac15 19:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yurop and Meksiko

[edit]

Previously deleted at this bulk RFD in 2015. G4 declined because that nomination concerned only Korean-language redirects and these names are used in other languages as well. The question, then, is if these names are used in a language pertinent to the respective regions and/or are plausible misspellings in English. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kirwin station

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Justification provided, withdrawing discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, and nothing meaningful showed up in an internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill [User talk:Rosguill|talk]] 17:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Keep, citations added here. Cards84664 18:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, withdrawing. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ablums

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how plausible this typo is, given that the B and M keys are fairly far apart on a keyboard (to be fair, this misspelling is used in some official titles, such as Ablum by Duplex!). I'm tilting towards delete unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 14:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The transposition is between the B and L adjacent letters. It's something that I occasionally do when one hand is too fast to hit its key before the other hand hits its intended key. So it's possible to type the 'b' before the 'l' by accident. On the other hand, I really don't think we ought to be making redirects to cover every possible transposition of adjacent letters, otherwise we'd have alubm and albmu to deal with. I'd be inclined to let the search function deal with transpositions and get rid of the redirects, but it's not a big deal. --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I must've missed it. I meant to say "B and L" keys...just typed in the wrong letter, since the L and M keys are really close to each other. Regards, SONIC678 16:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Magnetic capacitivity

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such term. The redirect was deleted (as part of a move) as a result of a discussion at Talk:Gyrator–capacitor model#Magnetic capacitivity. I requested the creator to explain, but received no response. SpinningSpark 13:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The discussion linked by nom suggests a mistranslation from German or Russian, and I agree. A Google search for the unusual-looking word "capacivity" (which looks like a cross between capacitance, capacity and conductivity) left me none the wiser. A search for "magnetic capacivity" turned up stray references equating it to either permeance or permittivity (which are different things). I didn't find the 1913 Arkadiew paper cited in Gyrator–capacitor model; but did find this 1921 paper by the same author. It uses the expression magnetische Fähigkeit, which translates literally as "magnetic conductivity"; another odd-looking expression. However, this citation defines magnetische Fähigkeit as a synonym of magnetische Permeabilität, "magnetic permeability". Cutting to the chase: no WP:RS source uses the expression "magnetic capacivity", it's an obscure and unlikely search term of unclear meaning, and we would be better off without it. Narky Blert (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cite Stenton ASE

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cross-namespace redirect to a template with only three transclusions. Peter James (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anybody who types {{cite Stenton ASE}} will use the template whether or not the identically named redirect exists. The redirect serves no purpose whatsoever. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Keep ass

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you've done there, but no. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of of

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated "of". Peter James (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Keeping Emulation Environments Portable

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close , redirect was converted to an article. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned in the article and a reader would find nothing useful about it there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was in ( seee here). CorporateM has delete it from the Article. I have now made a article from it. --Calle Cool (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:InvalidOS/A Recursive Redirect

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was redirect to User:InvalidOS/A Recursive Redirect. [April Fools!] (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like somebody wants to have fun. This is illegal.[4-1] InvalidOStalk 12:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All who oppose, say I. That's nobody. Pianostar9 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. Delete, recursive. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 18:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Russian World (disasmbiguation)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete WP:SNOW -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - typo in "disambiguation". Peter James (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gourmand (disamabiguation)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was deleted by Widr. Seems to be a partially enacted (early?) closure, but no link or CSD was referenced. Regardless, it's red, and WP:DRV is unnecessarily bureaucratic when the outcome for these is pretty clear, so marking as closed. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - typo in "disambiguation". Peter James (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Queen_for_a_Day_(album)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Queen_for_a_Day_(album)

Ibn al-Jawzi (disambigutation)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete WP:SNOW -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, typo in "disambiguation". Peter James (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mastio and Bergfrit

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Mastio and Bergfrit

Rahmanism

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Rahmanism

Wockeypoo

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got five Google hits looking this up, one of which was to a site called "Wockeypool", and another to pronouncewiki.com. I see no reason to have a redirect for a name so osbscure Urban Dictionary knows it not. Hog Farm (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flatulence Sound

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Flatulence Sound

Rush is right

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Rush is right

WP:AFD

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was discombobulate if deleted, so defenestrate that decision and disambiguate this discussion. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to WP:APRIL because the connection to April Fools' Day is much more obvious than any silly deletion nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_1&oldid=955617513"